Strategic Defence Review - 2025

[Finty]

Aye. This must be a unique occurrence, a training squadron being assigned a nuclear role?

I'm more cynical than that. I think it's "foot in the door" attempt by the RAF to get F-35A. Once there, they can then say they can take over the nuclear role, so there is no need for RN Trident replacement, and we can also get rid of the carriers. IMV politiciand are gullible enought to swallow that twaddle.

I really hope I'm wrong, but what happened with Shar/GR7/GR9 and the NSW doesn't fill me with confidence.

I can’t foresee tactical nukes replacing strategic nukes although a dose of cynicism is healthy when it comes to defence decision-making.

[Pat Murphy]

Got a problem with the navy???

lol.

Not really, except when the good of the Navy has obviously come before the Defence of the Nation that pays for said defence. Tha Navy neededf B's to justify the carriers. Just not as many as they would like. The A model was always the obvious choice for the RAF and as it's cheaper in all respects, better value for the country....but I'm guessing you know that already

[Supra]

In all seriousness, I think the reasoning within the MoD was that, since the last catapult-launched jet in the Navy was quite a while ago (Phantom?), they figured the Royal Navy had lost the necessary training systems and infrastructure. But they were still well-versed with the Harrier and the whole VTOL setup, so it made more sense to stick with what was already in place.
(Edited)

If we're into cynical, the I'm onboard!
There's probably no serving personell in the Royal Navy that can even recall steam-driven cat & traps. Equally I'm thinking there must only be a few career old-hands who can even remember Harrier Op's? The argument for retaining an out of date (before it even launched) VSTOL necessary Carrier was just plain wrong imo!

The comparison to the USN/Marines is obvious, but of course they have Helicopter/VSTOL Assault ships & dedicated EMALS equipped Aircraft Carriers from which the Marines operate alongside the Navy. The RN & F-35B is a typical short-sighted procurement of 2 defunct 'Tubs' that present as a whopping big target, only subsequently equipped with Phalanx & AEW capability amongst the well-known operational glitches (a boat that leaks right-off ) & dubious propulsion manufacturing!

The F-35B lugs that humungous Dyson around for its one & only party-trick. Wasted space in the jet that could be utilised for weapons & fuel, The latter being of crucial significance to avoid technology landing away in Kerala for example, or worse still some openly hostile Nation. OHH! Sorry I forgot the alternative, eject & pee a £115 million jet into the sea & wait for Putin to assist said Nation with recovery from their territorial waters? The Kerala incident could've been avoided if....
a) The B Model carried more fuel
b) The RN had buddy-buddy AAR
c) The RAF had a suitable AAR platform rather than relying on Tantrum Trump's AAR fleet that could be given orders not to refuel British assets due to UK Tariffs on tight Presidential underwear!

If anybody thinks that putting an AAR refuelling probe on an F-35A will be signed-off by the UK pen-pushers before 2038 at the earliest then you're possibly as deluded as MAGA-Boy??
PS, don't even think about retro-fitting Booms to Voyager, probably the same timescale & nobody has enough money to finance that modification that should've been on the original spec'. (along with the Cargo-door & reinforced Cargo-deck!)
That Air-Tanker Contract is more watertight than those embarrassing 'Pride of the Fleet' things!

Just my eight penneth! Wonder how many drones you can buy for £115 million?

[slogen51]

Sorry if this has already been discussed but fascinating that we are buying 12 F-35A with tactical nuke capability, where will they be based ?

I read further up about replacing subs? Big difference in terms of lethality between tactical and ICBM ( destruction of cities versus a company of tanks )

[Yunglee]

RAF Marham >>> https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/ra ... r-mission/

"The new fast jets will be based at RAF Marham and support the stand-up of a third front line F-35 Lightning Squadron"

There's been lot of chatter about 207 Sq - but the RAF news article states that the F-35A will go to a third front line squadron - so a new squadron and not 207 and with 207 using/ borrowing the jets?

Lee

[Finty]

RAF Marham >>> https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/ra ... r-mission/

"The new fast jets will be based at RAF Marham and support the stand-up of a third front line F-35 Lightning Squadron"

There's been lot of chatter about 207 Sq - but the RAF news article states that the F-35A will go to a third front line squadron - so a new squadron and not 207 and with 207 using/ borrowing the jets?

Lee

It’s quite ambiguous because that article also says “Day-to-day, the F-35As will be used in a training role on 207 Squadron, the Operational Conversion Unit (OCU)”, furthermore, it doesn’t explicitly say that the third front line unit will be F-35A so it could mean that it will be a B unit.

[Canberra TT.18]

Mixed OCU I can understand but a mixed operational squadron is odd. So half the unit goes on deployment aboard a carrier and the others.. well obviously not.

[dazzler5440]

TV crews have been filming outside of Marham QE gate today. CND have also mentioned protests there.

[roger4]

I don't see what all the fuss is about. We have 48 F-35B in the current order with 38 (I think) delivered. The announcement today is for the next order for 27 of which 12 will be F-35A and 15 will be F-35B, and brings our orders to date to 75 aircraft. That leaves 63 still to be ordered in the future to give the total of 138 in the announcement.

Future orders could be for A's or B's, but if, for example, they were all A's we would end up with 63 F-35B and 75 F-35A (not sure by when, of course). Surely that is enough for two or even three squadrons of B's, primarily assigned to carrier use, and say four or five front-line RAF squadrons of A's, and also a A's and B's OCU. We wouldn't expect the OCU to be the front-line deliverer of nuclear weapons, if they were ever needed (hopefully never).

[binbrook87]

I still think it's positive news. Probably should have always gone for both A and B models anyway from the outset to augment the Typhoon fleet and future proof the RAF when they come to the end of their lives (in case Tempest never happens) But there's always going to be cudda shudda wudda because we're all critical aviation enthusiasts Any preferences on which squadron you'd like to see resurrected? Presume because of the strike role it will be a bomber unit? Although if not then can we pray for 74 squadron please!!

[NorvilleRogers]

Will there be a second F-35 base, if they do end up with 138 that seems a lot if it’s just Marham?

[roger4]

I would have thought the first squadron to operate the F-35A after the OCU would be 617Sq.

XV is the lowest numbered squadron not currently in use and it's an ex-Tornado unit, so would be a fairly obvious choice.

I agree 74Sq should be in there, to get us back into the NATO Tiger Meets, but grey-on-grey tiger camo always looks a bit naff to me! I would then look to stand-up ex-Vulcan squadrons, with 35Sq, 44Sq and 50Sq all possible (50Sq would be my first choice of these three as it would also honour the Falklands "Black Buck" missions).

And I wouldn't put all 138 aircraft into the one Marham basket. That number suggests to me probably three bases.

[EGDR]

Disagree, this is about new technologies rendering the SSBNs vulnerable to detection.

This is largely a myth, in the same vein as "Russia/China/Iran can track stealth aircraft". There are rapid developments in terms of autonomous undersea warfare, but the same is also true for evading detection. The sea remains a big place, and SSBNs on patrol are almost completely silent. If they were as vulnerable as is posited, China wouldn't be building the Type 096 and Russia wouldn't already be planning for the follow-on design that will succeed the Borei class.

I read further up about replacing subs? Big difference in terms of lethality between tactical and ICBM ( destruction of cities versus a company of tanks )

In terms of yield there's actually not much difference. Many B61s come with warheads with a greater yield than our Holbrook warheads (adapted from the W76) are thought to have. The submarine delivery method, though, for sure is more survivable and suited for strategic purposes.

[Thunder]

And I wouldn't put all 138 aircraft into the one Marham basket. That number suggests to me probably three bases.

What bases would these be then, obviously Marham is one , what other two? Leeming, Leuchars, Yeovilton and Kinloss will all no doubt be mentioned but it would costs billions of £££££££, to get them up to standard. Then you have the question of manpower to operate another 2 frontline bases. Unless the Government/MoD have some sort of magic wand to sort out the manpower issue, it ain’t gonna happen.

[Malcolm]

It's the 138 jets in service at the same time that will never happen. The current 'plan' is 138 jets over the lifetime of the program, and with the carriers supposedly going into the 2060's there is no way the jets currently in service will last that long. I'd expect the number in service at any one time to be capped at around 65-75, and Marham can cope with that many. Once the oldest jets get to the end of their lives they're retired and replaced with new builds.

[slogen51]

Disagree, this is about new technologies rendering the SSBNs vulnerable to detection.

This is largely a myth, in the same vein as "Russia/China/Iran can track stealth aircraft". There are rapid developments in terms of autonomous undersea warfare, but the same is also true for evading detection. The sea remains a big place, and SSBNs on patrol are almost completely silent. If they were as vulnerable as is posited, China wouldn't be building the Type 096 and Russia wouldn't already be planning for the follow-on design that will succeed the Borei class.

I read further up about replacing subs? Big difference in terms of lethality between tactical and ICBM ( destruction of cities versus a company of tanks )

In terms of yield there's actually not much difference. Many B61s come with warheads with a greater yield than our Holbrook warheads (adapted from the W76) are thought to have. The submarine delivery method, though, for sure is more survivable and suited for strategic purposes.

That's not what a defence expert was saying on Radio 4 yesterday : Tactical nuclear weapons for the battle field and strategic weapons to destroy whole cities. He went on to say that giving up our tactical weapons was a mistake as putin knows we probably wouldn't use strategic weapons in a regional battle unless a British city was directly attacked .

It sounded to my inexpert ears that the weapons would be so called dual key whereby the USA retains some control of how the tactical weapons are used? The UK submarine systems are apparently under full UK control

[Harkins]

It's the 138 jets in service at the same time that will never happen. The current 'plan' is 138 jets over the lifetime of the program, and with the carriers supposedly going into the 2060's there is no way the jets currently in service will last that long. I'd expect the number in service at any one time to be capped at around 65-75, and Marham can cope with that many. Once the oldest jets get to the end of their lives they're retired and replaced with new builds.

Not been near Marham since its facelift, but can it really accommodate up to 75 jets? And where do they live these days? Are they mixed between large hangars and HASs? Just thinking a bit about the recent drone job on Putins nuke force and how vulnerable the F-35s might be. I guess if things got to that level of tension they may already be dispersed.

[Snoop 95]

It's the 138 jets in service at the same time that will never happen. The current 'plan' is 138 jets over the lifetime of the program, and with the carriers supposedly going into the 2060's there is no way the jets currently in service will last that long. I'd expect the number in service at any one time to be capped at around 65-75, and Marham can cope with that many. Once the oldest jets get to the end of their lives they're retired and replaced with new builds.

Not been near Marham since its facelift, but can it really accommodate up to 75 jets? And where do they live these days? Are they mixed between large hangars and HASs? Just thinking a bit about the recent drone job on Putins nuke force and how vulnerable the F-35s might be. I guess if things got to that level of tension they may already be dispersed.

Lakenheath has more than 75 most of which seem to be parked in the open. So just more concrete required at Marham.

[C-Harvey]

Three questions spring to mind.

In ten to fifteen years time,

Who and where will we be attacking and why?

Who and what will we be defending against?

Who pays for all the kit?

[Finty]

Three questions spring to mind.

In ten to fifteen years time,

Who and where will we be attacking and why?

Who and what will we be defending against?

Who pays for all the kit?

It’s a deterrent, so hopefully no one. That’s the point of a deterrent.

We’ll pay. Ideally by cutting foreign aid budget or something!